Coronavirus: Businessman loses legal fight over 'draconian' lockdown
Simon Dolan expresses his frustration via Twitter but tells his supporters an appeal is being considered.
Monday 6 July 2020 16:47, UK
A millionaire businessman has lost his bid to bring a High Court challenge against the government over the coronavirus lockdown.
Entrepreneur Simon Dolan, whose interests span accountancy to motorsport, raised more than £200,000 via crowdfunding to seek a judicial review of the restrictions of movement imposed in England back in March to limit the spread of COVID-19.
Mr Dolan vowed to continue with the case as the lockdown was gradually eased ahead of his day in court last week.
Judgment was reserved until Monday.
Mr Dolan had told Sky's Ian King Live programme at the time the legal action was launched in June that his aim was to have the rules declared illegal and to "get Britain back and working".
He wrote on his Crowdjustice page: "We believe that the govt has acted illegally and disproportionately over the COVID -19 lockdown and we are taking action.
"By forcing people to stay at home, and forcing businesses to close, they are, we believe, in contravention of basic Human Rights offered under English Law, that of the right to enjoy your property peacefully."
The businessman, who is worth £200m according to the Sunday Times Rich List, told his Twitter followers than an appeal was being considered in the wake of Monday's judgment.
"The most draconian laws ever introduced in England, with no Parliamentary scrutiny and they are seen to be fit and proper by the Courts. England 2020", he wrote.
:: Listen to the The World Tomorrow on , ,
In his ruling, Mr Justice Lewis said that the rules in force on 2 July - the day of the hearing in the case - "did involve a restriction on the freedom of assembly and association".
But he added: "The context in which the restrictions were imposed, however, was of a global pandemic where a novel, highly infectious disease capable of causing death was spreading and was transmissible between humans. There was no known cure and no vaccine.
"There was a legal duty to review the restrictions periodically and to end the restrictions if they were no longer necessary to achieve the aim of reducing the spread and the incidence of coronavirus. The regulations would end after six months in any event.
"In those, possible unique, circumstances, there is no realistic prospect that a court would find that regulations adopted to reduce the opportunity for transmission by limiting contact between individuals was disproportionate."